Werner nuclear verdict overturned by Texas Supreme Court

A nuclear verdict against Werner Enterprises that shocked the trucking industry years ago has been overturned. The case emphasized the need for tort reform across the country.

In a 5-3 decision, the Texas Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s ruling that held Werner liable for $90 million in a personal injury lawsuit. This ruling is seen as a major win for trucking stakeholders, who were baffled by a truck driver facing such a large verdict despite no wrongdoing.

While the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling allows Werner to breathe easier, it chose not to address tort reform, limiting its opinion.

“This is a long-awaited win for Werner,” Nathan Meisgeier, Werner’s president and chief legal officer, said in a statement. “After seven years navigating the appellate process, we are thankful the Texas Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as law enforcement – that the Werner drivers and our company did nothing wrong. A different outcome would have had far-reaching implications beyond the transportation industry.”

The crash

The Texas Supreme Court case stems from a lawsuit filed by the family of Zachary Blake and Brianna Blake. Zachary, who was 7 years old, was killed in the crash with a Werner truck. Brianna, who was 12, was rendered a quadriplegic.

In December 2014, the Blakes were traveling east on Interstate 20 in Texas in a pickup truck driven by Zaragoza “Trey” Salinas. Weather conditions were icy at the time. Salinas lost control of the vehicle going 50-60 mph and careened across a grass median, entering the westbound lanes.

At this time, Shiraz Ali was driving a truck for Werner going west on I-20. He was driving below the speed limit when the pickup truck began to spin. Jeff Ackerman, a Werner driver-trainer, was also in the truck. According to the appellate brief, Ali reacted in half a second, hitting the brakes.

Even the Blakes’ expert witness conceded that Ali’s reaction was “very quick” and “appropriate to the conditions.”

In addition to Salinas making statements suggesting guilt and responsibility, a Texas Department of Public Safety trooper defended Ali’s actions. Trooper Villareal, a 17-year veteran who investigated the accident, concluded it was “truly an accident,” Ali “didn’t do anything wrong” and there was nothing Ali “could have done to avoid the collision.” A higher-ranking trooper who approved the report concurred.

Company culture and policy on trial

During the trial, the plaintiffs presented evidence not directly related to the crash.

To show that Werner’s culture and policy led to the crash, the plaintiffs’ attorneys provided:

Details about Werner’s training and supervision of Ali
Lack of a “command center” for weather monitoring
Werner’s handling of crash investigations
Claims of the driving school director’s unqualification
Failure to require a CB radio
Failure to require an outside temperature gauge

This evidence convinced the jury that Werner was responsible for the crash. In 2018, the jury found Werner 70% liable, Ali 14% liable and Salinas 16% liable. It awarded the plaintiffs over $100 million after interest.

Werner challenged the verdict. However, the full 14th Court of Appeals in Texas affirmed the verdict. The trucking company appealed to the state Supreme Court, arguing that neither the company nor Ali caused the crash. Werner also requested that the court adopt the Admission Rule.

In its petition, Werner argued that by accepting liability for Ali’s actions, plaintiffs could not pursue “derivative theories of negligence.” The Admission Rule states that once an employer admits liability, evidence of the employer’s hiring, training or supervision practices should be inadmissible as irrelevant and potentially prejudicial, according to the law firm Lewis Brisbois.

The Admission Rule has been adopted in several states. In Texas, courts are split on the rule, with some adopting it and others – like the 14th Court of Appeals – rejecting it.

If the Supreme Court were to adopt the rule, trucking companies’ practices, policies and overarching operations and culture could not be used in a crash lawsuit when the company accepts vicarious liability. Effectively, jurors would not be subjected to prejudicial evidence that fuels nuclear verdicts.

Wrong place, wrong time

The Texas Supreme Court ultimately found that Werner’s involvement was “mere happenstance of place and time” and could not be held liable.

At trial, the plaintiffs were able to show that if not for the truck driver’s speed – which was below the posted limit but still unsafe for the conditions – the crash never would have happened. Or at the very least, it would have been less severe.

However, the high court found that although the Werner driver’s presence and speed may have “furnished the condition that made the injuries possible,” it was not a proximate cause. Rather, the proximate cause “was the sudden, unexpected hurtling of the victims’ vehicle into oncoming highway traffic, for which the defendants bore no responsibility.”

“That singular and robustly explanatory fact fully explains why the accident happened and who is responsible for the resulting injuries,” Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock wrote in the majority opinion. “Because no further explanation is reasonably necessary to substantially explain the origins of this accident or to assign responsibility for the plaintiffs’ injuries, the rule of proximate causation does not permit a factfinder to search for other, subordinate actors in the causal chain and assign liability to them.”

Because the court’s finding on proximate cause resulted in reversing the nuclear verdict, the justices did not address the Admission Rule. LL